3 ms·

> But the media is critical of it because Trump mentioned it. What an odd conclusion to draw. I think it would be more accurate to say: Trump is being critici

> But the media is critical of it because Trump mentioned it. What an odd conclusion to draw. I think it would be more accurate to say: Trump is being criticized for hyping a medication that has not yet undergone medical trials. There's an established method for bringing medication to market. Trump is ignorant of that method. That's why he's being criticized.

gizmo 6y ago
HCQ is not a new drug. It's widely available globally. It has been used as an antiviral therapeutic and to prevent malaria since the 50s or so.
- lucd 6y ago
  Medical misinformation : Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. For Lupus or RA hydroxychloroquine helps through its anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Khelavaster 6y ago
    Hydroxychloroquine also directly inhibits heme breakdown, a weak point in malaria parasites' blood digestion. Beyond its standard antiviral and immunomodulatory activity, it's thought that hydroxychloroquine protects red blood cells' heme molecules from having their iron ripped out by Covid.
- bradford 6y ago
  Right, It's not a new drug, but its efficacy for treating COVID-19 has not been established. Using it to treat COVID-19 prior to completion of medical trials is premature and has the potential to cause more harm than good. "widely available globally" and "has been used as an antiviral therapeutic" is not the correct criteria to use here.
  - ikerdanzel 6y ago
    I suggest you try to get in touch with those people working in Asian sides using it as treatment. Most don't publish their results there but do use it. And you can see a significant low mortality compare to western countries that largely choose not to use it. South and Eastern Asian side has very high infection rates way more than western counterpart and yet mortality is significantly lower both in terms of absolute value or by percentage.
  - ryathal 6y ago
    Off label uses of drugs has been common for decades. Trials aren't just spun up without some evidence of anecdotes to support them being worth the effort. If anything a drug with well understood side effects and a plausible method of actually being helpful is probably worth trying while formal trials can be conducted.
  - gizmo 6y ago
    When you're dealing with a new disease there are no best practices for treatment. This is tautologically true. That's why doctors have to use their best judgement and try different things and write down what seems to work and what doesn't. Often they get it wrong, with very bad consequences. For instance putting covid patients prematurely on mechanical ventilators had catastrophic health implications. When this became apparent ventilator policy changed. People died and now we know better. It's ugly, but that's how you learn about treating a new(ish) disease. Waiting for the results of multiple randomized controlled trials is, frankly, fantasy. Covid has almost entirely ran its course and we aren't close to having solid treatment results from randomized controlled trials. Premature and ad-hoc treatment is how we've muddled through the pandemic, and it's how we'll muddle through the next pandemic, too.
    - manicdee 6y ago
      > When you're dealing with a new disease there are no best practices for treatment. That doesn't give you carte blanche to claim that your drug does wonderful things for condition X when the evidence supporting your claim is non-existent, extremely weak, or obviously fraudulent. > That's why doctors have to use their best judgement and try different things and write down what seems to work and what doesn't. Which is completely different to POTUS recommending HCQ because he or his friends have financial interest in a company that makes that drug. It's also extremely negligent to try popularising a particular drug which is already in short supply and needed by people with existing life-threatening conditions. If something looks promising, you finance some trials to provide more certainty, and then you look at ways to ramp up production because you know demand is going to increase.

gizmo 6y ago

HCQ is not a new drug. It's widely available globally. It has been used as an antiviral therapeutic and to prevent malaria since the 50s or so.

lucd 6y ago
Medical misinformation : Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. For Lupus or RA hydroxychloroquine helps through its anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Khelavaster 6y ago
  Hydroxychloroquine also directly inhibits heme breakdown, a weak point in malaria parasites' blood digestion. Beyond its standard antiviral and immunomodulatory activity, it's thought that hydroxychloroquine protects red blood cells' heme molecules from having their iron ripped out by Covid.
bradford 6y ago
Right, It's not a new drug, but its efficacy for treating COVID-19 has not been established. Using it to treat COVID-19 prior to completion of medical trials is premature and has the potential to cause more harm than good. "widely available globally" and "has been used as an antiviral therapeutic" is not the correct criteria to use here.
- ikerdanzel 6y ago
  I suggest you try to get in touch with those people working in Asian sides using it as treatment. Most don't publish their results there but do use it. And you can see a significant low mortality compare to western countries that largely choose not to use it. South and Eastern Asian side has very high infection rates way more than western counterpart and yet mortality is significantly lower both in terms of absolute value or by percentage.
- ryathal 6y ago
  Off label uses of drugs has been common for decades. Trials aren't just spun up without some evidence of anecdotes to support them being worth the effort. If anything a drug with well understood side effects and a plausible method of actually being helpful is probably worth trying while formal trials can be conducted.
- gizmo 6y ago
  When you're dealing with a new disease there are no best practices for treatment. This is tautologically true. That's why doctors have to use their best judgement and try different things and write down what seems to work and what doesn't. Often they get it wrong, with very bad consequences. For instance putting covid patients prematurely on mechanical ventilators had catastrophic health implications. When this became apparent ventilator policy changed. People died and now we know better. It's ugly, but that's how you learn about treating a new(ish) disease. Waiting for the results of multiple randomized controlled trials is, frankly, fantasy. Covid has almost entirely ran its course and we aren't close to having solid treatment results from randomized controlled trials. Premature and ad-hoc treatment is how we've muddled through the pandemic, and it's how we'll muddle through the next pandemic, too.
  - manicdee 6y ago
    > When you're dealing with a new disease there are no best practices for treatment. That doesn't give you carte blanche to claim that your drug does wonderful things for condition X when the evidence supporting your claim is non-existent, extremely weak, or obviously fraudulent. > That's why doctors have to use their best judgement and try different things and write down what seems to work and what doesn't. Which is completely different to POTUS recommending HCQ because he or his friends have financial interest in a company that makes that drug. It's also extremely negligent to try popularising a particular drug which is already in short supply and needed by people with existing life-threatening conditions. If something looks promising, you finance some trials to provide more certainty, and then you look at ways to ramp up production because you know demand is going to increase.